It was a native American Indian, one of the millions killed by racist's who stole their country and treated them like crap for centuries.

Not sure what the point is?

This is how history works. Of course I would be on the side of the Amerindians back in the day just like I'd be on the side of the Palestinians now but the fact is that if one fails to defend one's land then to the victors the spoils.

It's fair enough.

But having said that; if there is even ONE person who 'wants their country back' then by all means try and get it. Garner support. Start a group to do so. If the oppressors are bad enough even start an armed resistance. It's all part and parcel of the same thing but here you'll see the stench of hypocrisy....

Do any of these legitimate things and you'll be a 'terrorist'. Just like if the Amerindians started something now. Or the Palestinians. Or the Tamils. Or whoever...

It's a stitch up and we're being dealt stacked hands.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

This law will never happen in the US This is a sick and perverted law which that is what you are dealing with obsessed people who know no better in life.

Actually there is no such thing as Shari'a law. I was being ironic. But it does serve to show the massive ignorance existing in the West about all things Islamic.

Shari'a is in fact a conglomeration of rulings by various Imams and Judges. It consists of varying aspects; money, marriage, criminality and all manner of civil law.

There is no over-riding corpus and nor does it derive solely from the Qur'an (hardly at all in fact) but is constantly updated by many different authorities, many of whom do not agree with each other, are in contradiction and belong to differing sects and groups.

So it does not in effect exist. For example, there is SAUDI STATE LAW which they (and Western Islamophobes and other uninformed groups) claim is Shari'a but it is not accepted by other Muslims. Nor is it Qur'anic in any form.

Also much Western law is derived en toto from the Islamic Legal aspects of what such people call Shari;a which I always find hilarious. Western law is based on Shari'a !!!

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

There is no over-riding corpus and nor does it derive solely from the Qur'an (hardly at all in fact) but is constantly updated by many different authorities, many of whom do not agree with each other, are in contradiction and belong to differing sects and groups.

So it does not in effect exist. For example, there is SAUDI STATE LAW which they (and Western Islamophobes and other uninformed groups) claim is Shari'a but it is not accepted by other Muslims. Nor is it Qur'anic in any form.

Perhaps you would care to explain why Saudi is diametrically opposed to Iran on religious grounds and vice versa and they could share the same law?

They don't.

Yet they both call it Shari'a. Both for example have punishments for being gay.

Yet in Indonesia - also calling it's law Shari'a, being gay is legal as are all gay practices.

I know you are a literalist but calling something a thing does not make it so. Especially in different cultural contexts but I know both culture and cultures are not your strong point so best to leave that....

Oh dear. It's a bit embarrassing, you're too out of your depth. I'll take it easy on you as I see you're really struggling now.

First Islamic Law is based on the Biblical laws you quote !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you support those and oppose the Islamic - THEY ARE THE SAME!!!!!!!! It's insane!!!

Second you are wrong as the jury system and attendant law is a later Islamic development and one adopted by the West.

And virtually the entirety of Common Law is Islamic:

Quote:

Another remarkable resemblance with Islamic law is that judges when rendering decisions look at case precedents. This is similar to the methodology of legal precedent and reasoning by analogy (Qiyas) that was described by early Islamic legal scholars.

Some important and core features of modern English contract law that were studied in class were the concept of rescission, frustration of purpose and force majeure. These concepts are relatively recent introductions into the Law of England and can be traced back to Islamic roots.

Early Islamic jurists formulated contract laws that introduced formal rationality, legal logic and analogical reasoning in the use of contracts. In fact, Islamic jurists were the first to introduce the concepts of rescission (Iqalah), frustration of purpose (istihalah al-tanfidh or "impossibility of performance"), Act of God (afat samawiyah or "Misfortune from Heaven") and force majeure in the law of contracts.

Curious to find out more about the connection between Islamic Shariah law and common law, I started to do more research on the subject. I came across recent studies that have looked at the possibility that certain principles of early English common law are rooted in Islamic law through contact with the multicultural kingdoms of Sicily and Jerusalem. Several scholars, most notably Professor John Makdisi in the United States and barrister Omar Faruk in the United Kingdom suggest a connection between the two systems of law.

And that is the problem with Sharia Law...Islamic Nations base their legal understanding on Sharia Law at the exclusion of what the west finds most dear: freedom.

The facts of this discussion are that you don't have any! You clearly misunderstand Sharia Law and you don't understand its threat to the west. The fact that Islamic Nations forbid religious freedom... not a single Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue in the nations you mention... the permanent oppression of women in the nations you mention... and you're out front with your apologia of Sharia Law makes what you post both sad and laughable...

And that is the problem with Sharia Law...Islamic Nations base their legal understanding on Sharia Law at the exclusion of what the west finds most dear: freedom.

The facts of this discussion are that you don't have any! You clearly misunderstand Sharia Law and you don't understand its threat to the west. The fact that Islamic Nations forbid religious freedom... not a single Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue in the nations you mention... the permanent oppression of women in the nations you mention... and you're out front with your apologia of Sharia Law makes what you post both sad and laughable...

Come back here when you have facts... not Islamic propaganda...

First off I like both you and Seg. Just for the record.

I have my differences with both you and seg from time to time (yes I am human that way) but what I find interesting is the way which all of us argue here.

I actually think you have some valid points in this post where you raise your concern about the lack of religious freedom in certain countries which seem to only allow one religion. This could not be more valid a fact.

But what I think subtracts from when you do raise a most valid observation is when you post remarks like the following:

"The Indians stole the country from some other group and treated them like crap; they earned our wrath..."

Why the need to dismiss one group while feeling the need to protect your own rear end? That does not sound very universal or filled with any measure integrity. (Am I wrong?)

Wrongs are simply wrongs and there is no justification. We should all learn to discuss and debate the wrongs we see. We should never dismiss wrongs just because it affects some other group of people than ourselves (as we might see it in our minds eye).

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

And that is the problem with Sharia Law...Islamic Nations base their legal understanding on Sharia Law at the exclusion of what the west finds most dear: freedom.

The facts of this discussion are that you don't have any! You clearly misunderstand Sharia Law and you don't understand its threat to the west. The fact that Islamic Nations forbid religious freedom... not a single Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue in the nations you mention... the permanent oppression of women in the nations you mention... and you're out front with your apologia of Sharia Law makes what you post both sad and laughable...

Come back here when you have facts... not Islamic propaganda...

OK - I'm back!! With FACTS!!!!

The only countries I mentioned were Saudi, Iran and Indonesia.

Your statement of 'fact' was:

not a single Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue in the nations you mention.

The Indonesian Christian Church (in short: GKI, originally: Gereja Kristen Indonesia) is a shape and continuation of Indonesian Christian Church in West Jawa, Central Java and East Java. These churches were originally an individual church respectively. As the outcomes of mission undertaken by local and foreign missionaries, in East Java on February 22, 1934 existed a church which later in its progress named as the Indonesian Christian Church East Java; in West Java on March 24, 1940 existed a church which later in its progress named as the Indonesian Christian Church West Java; and in Central Java on August 8, 1945 existed a church which later in its progress named as the Indonesian Christian Churches Central Java. The three churches since March 27, 1962 in the form of the General Synod (Sinode Am) has initiated its common efforts focusing to one goal, to form a uniting of the Indonesian Christian Church.

GKI West Java and GKI East Java affiliated to the Dutch Hervormd mission, whereas GKI Central Java affiliated to the Dutch Gereformeerd mission. Comprises in GKI West Java a number of congregations which formed one presbytery, which is affiliated to local and foreign Chinese Evangelical mission. Differs the forms and processes of other church unity, all the congregation from the three previous GKIs, without exception, merged altogether in GKI’s uniting.

Today, “descendants of Iraqi Jews who came to Indonesia more than a century ago to trade spices still live and practice in Surabaya in the eastern half of the densely populated (and almost exclusively Muslim) island of Java. Their Jewish traditions are primarily ancient in origin (the Sabbath before Yom Kippur, for example, the community leader slaughters a chicken and swings it around the synagogue courtyard to dispel the community’s sins), though Dutch Jewish traders from the 18th and 19th centuries introduced them to some European Rabbinical teachings” (The Jews of Africa).

In Surabaya, the Jewish community preserves the last synagogue in Indonesia without a rabbi. The synagogue was purchased in the 1950s, and is in a traditional Orthodox, Sephardic style; men and women are separated by a mechiza and the pulpit and congregation face the simple, plain wood ark. The ark has been empty since its two Torah scrolls were relocated to the Jewish congregation in Singapore. There are a small number of individual Jews living in Jakarta, but most are not very religious. Essentially, the Jewish community in Indonesia is continuing to decline because of immigration sparked by a recent rise in anti-Semitism. Today, only about 20 Jews livie in Indonesia.

Christianity in Iran has had a long history, dating back to the very early years of the faith. It has always been a minority religion, overshadowed by the majority state religions — Zoroastrianism in the past, and Shia Islam today — though it had a much larger representation in the past than it does today. Christians of Iran have played a significant part in the history of Christian mission.

wait...what's that bell ringing????? The referee is stopping the fight... towels are being thrown into the ring.... they should never have allowed that boy scout in with Tyson....it's a massacre in there..... take this off the air...children are watching....CUT THE BROADCAST.......NOW!!!!!!

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

I actually think you have some valid points in this post where you raise your concern about the lack of religious freedom in certain countries which seem to only allow one religion. This could not be more valid a fact.

This point clearly defines what Sharia Law is; the exclusion of freedom of religion in Islamic nations depicts Islamic Law and its proponents for what they are...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fellowship

But what I think subtracts from when you do raise a most valid observation is when you post remarks like the following:

"The Indians stole the country from some other group and treated them like crap; they earned our wrath..."

Not posted to be dismissive in any way... Hands Sandon's initial post in this thread tried to, in a humorous way I assume, link the Tea Party and the American Indian. I tried to deflate that point but I will concede I did so poorly... apologies for this point...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fellowship

Wrongs are simply wrongs and there is no justification. We should all learn to discuss and debate the wrongs we see. We should never dismiss wrongs just because it affects some other group of people than ourselves (as we might see it in our minds eye).

I'll take the bait you throw out though... I don't accept the condemnation of "wrong" in our westward migration within this nation; the Turner Thesis, and what it involved and who it involved. I think that should be argued in another post as a separate point...

Quote:

Originally Posted by segovius

OK - I'm back!! With FACTS!!!

Too late; you've been judged and found wanting... Show me a Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue in Medina or Mecca...None there? Oh... is that the sound of Sharia? Wow...

I actually think you have some valid points in this post where you raise your concern about the lack of religious freedom in certain countries which seem to only allow one religion. This could not be more valid a fact.

Hi Fellows...!

What do you think of the lists of Churches and Synagogues I posted ? Would be interested to know...they are surprising no?

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

The fact that Islamic Nations forbid religious freedom... not a single Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue in the nations you mention...
Come back here when you have facts... not Islamic propaganda...\\

Quote:

Originally Posted by segovius

OK - I'm back!! With FACTS!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camp David

Too late; you've been judged and found wanting... Show me a Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue in Medina or Mecca...None there? Oh... is that the sound of Sharia? Wow...

Quote:

Originally Posted by segovius

Hi Fellows...!

What do you think of the lists of Churches and Synagogues I posted ? Would be interested to know...they are surprising no?

He avoided the issue; Sego's yet to explain why Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Islam, bans every religion but Islam. What he sidetracked the issue with was a list of minor nations that make a token attempt to embrace religious freedom, yet he deftly avoided explaining Saudi Arabia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

No one is a judge here---.

Sego made the outrageous claim that,

Quote:

Originally Posted by segovius

"...Actually there is no such thing as Shari'a law..."

which deserves both our attention and judgment; the reason is one of facts; i.e., his lack of them, since what he claimed just isn't true....

He avoided the issue; Sego's yet to explain why Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Islam, bans every religion but Islam. What he sidetracked the issue with was a list of minor nations that make a token attempt to embrace religious freedom, yet he deftly avoided explaining Saudi Arabia.

Explained it many times. Can do so again. here you go:

1) Saudi Arabia is not the cradle of Islam. ARABIA is the cradle of Islam.

Arabia is called SAUDI for a reason: it is now the domain of the House of Saud.

House of Saud follow the doctrine of Wahabism - ie a 300 year old sect.

Question for you: how can a 300 year old sect = a 1500 year old religion?

If it is the same thing then it is not a 300 year old sect is it?

Quote:

Wahhabi (Arabic: Al-Wahhābīyya‎ الوهابية) or Wahhabism is a conservative Sunni Islamic sect based on the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, an 18th century scholar from what is today known as Saudi Arabia, who advocated to purge Islam of what he considered innovations in Islam. Wahhabism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.

They spread power and influence by oil money and violence against orthodox Muslims (a practice still seen in Yemen and Iraq and elsewhere):

Quote:

Beginning in the last years of the 18th century Ibn Saud and his heirs would spend the next 140 years mounting various military campaigns to seize control of Arabia and its outlying regions, before being attacked and defeated by Ottoman forces.

One of their most famous and controversial attacks was on Karbala in 1802 (1217 AH). There, according to a Wahhabi chronicler `Uthman b. `Abdullah b. Bishr:

"[Wahhabis] scaled the walls, entered the city ... and killed the majority of its people in the markets and in their homes. [They] destroyed the dome placed over the grave of al-Husayn [and took] whatever they found inside the dome and its surroundings. .... the grille surrounding the tomb which was encrusted with emeralds, rubies, and other jewels. .... different types of property, weapons, clothing, carpets, gold, silver, precious copies of the Qur'an."

That they are not orthodox and accepted by most Muslims is well-known:

Quote:

Some Muslims, such as the Islamic Supreme Council of America, and Abdul Hadi Palazzi classify Wahhabbism as extremist, Islamist and heresy mainly based on Wahhabbism's rejection of traditional Sunni scholars and interpretation.

Let's repeat the key bit:

based on Wahhabbism's rejection of traditional Sunni scholars and interpretation.

Another question: how can one reject traditional Sunni interpretation AND be less than 300 years old and yet still be from 'the cradle of Islam'?

Add it to the list of question to dodge along with bearded Marxists.

Quote:

Sego made the outrageous claim that,

which deserves both our attention and judgment; the reason is one of facts; i.e., his lack of them, since what he claimed just isn't true....

Let me adjust if for you then seeing as you are suffering from comprehension problems at the moment.

There is one 'Sharia Law' in Saudi.

There is one - conflicting and opposing 'Sharia Law' in Indonesia.

There is one - conflicting and opposing 'Sharia Law' in Iran.

And on and on and on....which is why btw, you're rather silly 'no churches or synagogues' statement was so silly. It was true in regard to Saudi Sharia'a but nowhere in other Sharia.

So really, as there are so many conflicting ones, it is true to say that there is no over-riding Sharia law.

If you opposed SAUDI Sharia'a or Iranian Sharia's and stipulated which you would be correct.

But you don't - because you want to promote the idea there is only ONE Sharia' in order to further your agenda and justify your bias.

Facts have nothing to do with it.

ANd it is worrying - not because of you personally, clearly you are jot threat on any level, but you represent a sort of ignorance that is regressive and which is gaining traction.

If it gains enough it will have a certain power if only through the dull dense force of a blunt instrument. But that is all the more dangerous for being blind and unaware.

Like a runaway train.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

1) Saudi Arabia is not the cradle of Islam. ARABIA is the cradle of Islam.

The distinction you're making avoids the issue; ancient Arabia no longer exists and Saudi Arabia is the defacto cradle of modern Islam and embraces Islam's two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina. Both embrace Sharia Law and both deny religious freedom. Both forbid Christianity and Judeism. Your earlier point about Sharia Law has been shown incorrect and I have shown that the persecution of Christianity and Judeism is pervasive in numerous Islamic nations. Moreover you've avoided altogether the issue of the denial of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. Address these issues and stop trying to distract and hijack discussion....

So where does that leave us?

Sharia Law is a threat to the west. As the world of Islam spreads, the west needs to clearly understand its vast implications and understand its dangerous history, like a runaway train...

I think you answered the question, thank you. You can only try to explain it where it is understood only so many times, but sometimes you are yelling in crowd that is either deaf or refuses to listen.

Very true. There's no point engaging further but up to this point is important I think.

What we face today is a problem primarily of irrationality and bias. It doesn't matter whether one is Muslim, Christian or atheist, Left or Right or whatever as long as one is rational in one's arguments against the other.

If one is rational - accepting facts where they arise for example and adjusting one's views and opinions as new facts emerge and as we learn things about each other - then no harm can come.

We may still disagree and be on opposite sides but as long as we retain rationality then we are safe.

Conversely, the irrational is the great danger to us all: irrationality in the classroom, in the pulpit, in the street.

We need to keep pointing out facts to stop it spreading.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

It was a native American Indian, one of the millions killed by racist's who stole their country and treated them like crap for centuries.

Could you provide the estimates for the population of Native Americans in the U.S. before European settlers arrived and numbers for their decline after they arrived. I'm not trying to belittle any death but death by disease isn't exactly murder.

Could you provide the estimates for the population of Native Americans in the U.S. before European settlers arrived and numbers for their decline after they arrived. I'm not trying to belittle any death but death by disease isn't exactly murder.

Could you provide the estimates for the population of Native Americans in the U.S. before European settlers arrived and numbers for their decline after they arrived. I'm not trying to belittle any death but death by disease isn't exactly murder. [Unless it was intentional--comments by FT]

These are the pivotal letters:
Colonel Henry Bouquet to General Amherst, dated 13 July 1763, [262k] suggests in a postscript the distribution of blankets to "inocculate the Indians";
Amherst to Bouquet, dated 16 July 1763, [128k] approves this plan in a postscript and suggests as well as "to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race." (This postcript spans two pages.)
These letters also discuss the use of dogs to hunt the Indians, the so-called "Spaniard's Method," which Amherst approves in principle, but says he cannot implement because there are not enough dogs. In a letter dated 26 July 1763, Bouquet acknowledges Amherst's approval [125k] and writes, "all your Directions will be observed."

Historian Francis Parkman, in his book The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:

Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]
I have not found this letter, but there is a letter from Bouquet to Amherst, dated 23 June 1763, [189k] three weeks before the discussion of blankets to the Indians, stating that Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt (to which Bouquet would be heading with reinforcements) has reported smallpox in the Fort. This indicates at least that the writers knew the plan could be carried out.

Several other letters from the summer of 1763 show the smallpox idea was not an anomaly. The letters are filled with comments that indicate a genocidal intent, with phrases such as:
"...that Vermine ... have forfeited all claim to the rights of humanity" (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [149k]
"I would rather chuse the liberty to kill any Savage...." (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [121k]
"...Measures to be taken as would Bring about the Total Extirpation of those Indian Nations" (Amherst to Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of the Northern Indian Department, 9 July) [229k]
"...their Total Extirpation is scarce sufficient Attonement...." (Amherst to George Croghan, Deputy Agent for Indian Affairs, 7 August) [145k]
"...put a most Effectual Stop to their very Being" (Amherst to Johnhttp://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.htmlson, 27 August [292k]; emphasis in original).

Amherst that "the renowned general is worthy of that most honorable of titles, the Christian hero; for he loves his enemies and while he subdues them he makes them happy. He acts the general, the Briton, the conqueror and the Christian." From his own correspondence, however, it appears that the Indians were not among the enemies loved and made happy by Amherst. He held them in supreme contempt. He directed a subordinate: "You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians [with smallpox] by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race." Bluff, arrogant, forthright, Amherst is thus seen as a soldier of quite modern scientific resourcefulness, for all the eclipse that his military record suffered through the brilliancy of Wolfe, captor of Quebec

Actually there is no such thing as Shari'a law. I was being ironic. But it does serve to show the massive ignorance existing in the West about all things Islamic.

Shari'a is in fact a conglomeration of rulings by various Imams and Judges. It consists of varying aspects; money, marriage, criminality and all manner of civil law.

There is no over-riding corpus and nor does it derive solely from the Qur'an (hardly at all in fact) but is constantly updated by many different authorities, many of whom do not agree with each other, are in contradiction and belong to differing sects and groups.

So it does not in effect exist. For example, there is SAUDI STATE LAW which they (and Western Islamophobes and other uninformed groups) claim is Shari'a but it is not accepted by other Muslims. Nor is it Qur'anic in any form.

Also much Western law is derived en toto from the Islamic Legal aspects of what such people call Shari;a which I always find hilarious. Western law is based on Shari'a !!!

You are wrong go ask your friends in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other backwards moslem countries where they persecute and kill women, children, and this is Sharia Law.

All aspects of a Muslim's life are governed by Sharia. Sharia law comes from a combination of sources including the Qur'an (the Muslim holy book), the Hadith (sayings and conduct of the prophet Muhammad) and fatwas (the rulings of Islamic scholars).

Many people, including Muslims, misunderstand Sharia. It's often associated with the amputation of limbs, death by stoning, lashes and other medieval punishments. Because of this, it is sometimes thought of as draconian. Some people in the West view Sharia as archaic and unfair social ideas that are imposed upon people who live in Sharia-controlled countires.

Many Muslims, however, hold a different view. In the Islamic tradition Sharia is seen as something that nurtures humanity. They see the Sharia not in the light of something primitive but as something divinely revealed. In a society where social problems are endemic, Sharia frees humanity to realise its individual potential.

The philosophy of Sharia
The philosophy of Sharia - the Clear Path
Faraz Rabbani

Quote:

Legal rulings

The Sharia regulates all human actions and puts them into five categories: obligatory, recommended, permitted, disliked or forbidden.

Obligatory actions must be performed and when performed with good intentions are rewarded. The opposite is forbidden action. Recommended action is that which should be done and the opposite is disliked action. Permitted action is that which is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Most human actions fall in this last category.

The ultimate worth of actions is based on intention and sincerity, as mentioned by the Prophet, who said, "Actions are by intentions, and one shall only get that which one intended."

Life under the Sharia

The Sharia covers all aspects of human life. Classical Sharia manuals are often divided into four parts: laws relating to personal acts of worship, laws relating to commercial dealings, laws relating to marriage and divorce, and penal laws.

Sources of the Sharia

The primary sources of the Sharia are the Qur'an and the example of the Prophet Muhammad.

The Qur'an

The essence of its message is to establish the oneness of God and the spiritual and moral need of man for God. This need is fulfilled through worship and submission, and has ultimate consequences in the Hereafter.

The Qur'an is the word of God. Because of its inimitable style and eloquence, and, above all, the guidance and legal provisions it came with, it ensures the worldly and next-worldly welfare of humanity.

The Prophetic example (Sunna)

The Prophet's role was expounded in the Qur'an, "We have revealed the Remembrance [Qur'an] to you that you may explain to people that which was revealed for them." (16:44)

This explanation was through the Prophet's words, actions, and example. Following the guidance and the example of the Prophet was made obligatory, "O you who believe, obey God and obey the Messenger," (4: 59) and, "Verily, in the Messenger of God you have a beautiful example for those who seek God and the Last Day, and remember God much." The Prophet himself instructed, "I have left two things with you which if you hold on to, you shall not be misguided: the Book of God and my example." [Reported by Hakim and Malik]

Derived sources

There are two agreed-upon derived sources of Sharia: scholarly consensus (ijma') and legal analogy (qiyas).

Scholarly consensus

The basis for scholarly consensus being a source of law is the Qur'anic command to resolve matters by consultation, as God stated, "Those who answer the call of their Lord, established prayer, and whose affairs are by consultation." (42:38) Scholarly consensus is defined as being the agreement of all Muslim scholars at the level of juristic reasoning (ijtihad) in one age on a given legal ruling. Given the condition that all such scholars have to agree to the ruling, its scope is limited to matters that are clear according to the Qur'an and Prophetic example, upon which such consensus must necessarily be based. When established, though, scholarly consensus is decisive proof.

Legal analogy (Qiyas)

Legal analogy is a powerful tool to derive rulings for new matters. For example, drugs have been deemed impermissible, through legal analogy from the prohibition of alcohol that is established in the Qur'an. Such a ruling is based on the common underlying effective cause of intoxication.

Legal analogy and its various tools enables the jurists to understand the underlying reasons and causes for the rulings of the Qur'an and Prophetic example (sunna). This helps when dealing with ever-changing human situations and allows for new rulings to be applied most suitably and consistently.

I shall amend my comments re there being no such thing as Shari'a law to:

There is no such thing as Shari'a law as Camp David is promoting it.

An example would be if someone lived in - say - the East under a form of non-Western law and feared the imposition of Western law. They might say:

"They want to impose Western Law on us!!!"

I might then say:

"There is no such thing as Western Law!"

In a way it's true - there is US Law, British Law, French Law - all these may be "Western Law" in the abstract but the contradict each other in places, have no jurisdiction in each other's areas etc.

So although "Western Law" may exist, in the context of it being imposed on another non Western country it does not.

Camp David - if he wanted to be correct and factual and rational - should rather oppose SAUDI Law or IRANIAN Law or both. And obviously many others in his mind too

Unfortunately his trademark is a sort-off catch-all grab bag drive-by technique which he has admittedly elevated to an art form but unfortunately it is not very aesthetic and has not relation to anything in the real world. It's not even original as it is mostly cut and pastes...he's Damien Hirst if you will.

Legal Analogy:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

[url]Legal analogy (Qiyas)

Legal analogy is a powerful tool to derive rulings for new matters. For example, drugs have been deemed impermissible, through legal analogy from the prohibition of alcohol that is established in the Qur'an. Such a ruling is based on the common underlying effective cause of intoxication.

Legal analogy and its various tools enables the jurists to understand the underlying reasons and causes for the rulings of the Qur'an and Prophetic example (sunna). This helps when dealing with ever-changing human situations and allows for new rulings to be applied most suitably and consistently.

This is true but care needs to be taken - particularly in relation to drugs and alcohol. Look at this piece of apologetics to see what I mean:

Quote:

The prohibition of alcohol occurred in stages and [after] many incidents, for they [the Arabs] used to love to drink it. The first [verse] revealed regarding the matter of alcohol was: "They ask you about alcohol and gambling. Say: 'There is great sin in both although there is some benefit for people" [Baqarah:219] i.e. [benefit] in their trade. Hence, when this verse was revealed, some people left [alcohol] saying, "We have no need for that in which there is great sin," and some did not leave it saying, "We take [from its] benefit and we leave its sin." Thereafter, the verse was revealed: "Do not approach prayer while you are drunk" [Nisa:43] So some people left it saying, "We have no need for that which distracts us from the prayer," and some drank it outside the times of prayer until the verse was revealed: "O you who believe! Alcohol, gambling, [sacrificing for] idols, and divining of arrows are only an abomination [of Satan's work]" [Maidah:90-91]So [alcohol] became prohibited for them such that some of them said, "Allah did not prohibit anything as strictly as alcohol."

I have bolded the actual Qur'anic statements but you can see how interpretation of a statement (rightly or wrongly) leads to precedent which leads to Qiyas - which could be false.

The first verse:

"They ask you about alcohol and gambling. Say: 'There is great sin in both although there is some benefit for people"

Says there is Sin AND benefit. But the interpretation is that this benefit is for trade (!!!!) Is this true? there is no evidence at all but people accept it.

The second says don't pray when drunk - which strongly suggests there is no ban at all at that point.

The third only reiterates it has some sin.

So where is this 'Quranic ban' that Shari'a is supposed to state? It comes from interpretation and addition of Imams over the centuries and innovation. And people are encouraged to refer to the Imams and not think for themselves.

So if one refers to the Qur'an it is very different than Sharia which is actually only the law of a given State - Saudi for example.

Another example: there is no punishment of stoning in the Qur'an. Nowhere.

So where do these ideas come from? and how are they "Islamic'?

These are the questions that people could discuss rather than claiming there are no churches or synagogues anywhere and ignoring lists of hundreds of them when presented with them.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

...I shall amend my comments re there being no such thing as Shari'a law to...

You seem to ignore the cases worldwide of the imposition of Sharia Law upon westerners; i.e., against author Salman Rushdie, the fatwā against him, and of the Dutch cartoonist,the fatwā against him, politician Geert Wilders and the the fatwā against him, so he denial of Sharia Law within Islam is quite preposterous and with the body of evidence against such a claim you might do well to research "obvious" as a learning word!

You seem to ignore the cases worldwide of the imposition of Sharia Law upon westerners; i.e., against author Salman Rushdie, the fatwā against him, and of the Dutch cartoonist,the fatwā against him, politician Geert Wilders and the the fatwā against him, so he denial of Sharia Law within Islam is quite preposterous and with the body of evidence against such a claim you might do well to research "obvious" as a learning word!

Fatwas aren't anything to do with Shari'a.

You should know that if you are going to discuss such things.

Btw, Wilders is a right-wing Nazi....not surprising you would support him but it is a bit disconcerting to see fascism openly espoused.

Here is a summary of some of the punishments of Sharia:[/QUOTE]

I'm going to ask you again the question I asked you before - you can ignore it like you did before and like you do MJ's Marxist questions. I hope you do because you will look more foolish if possible.

First - I will say I am opposed to punishments such as stoning and amputation. They are barbaric

Here is my question: you are a Christian. Please comment on these passages from your Bible (remember these are IN the Bible - there is stoning mentioned in the Qur'an):

Quote:

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5

They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56

So - you believe the Bible is the literal word of God.

Will you support stoning for breaking the Sabbath?

Will you support stoning for adultery?

Will you support stoning for blasphemy?

Will you support stoning for non-virgins?

Do you support this stoning? Yes or no?

It's in YOUR Bible - it appears NOWHERE in the Qur'an.

Yet your logic is this:

It is not in the Qur'an but happens in Islamic countries so ISLAM IS BAD

It is commanded in the BIble but Christians do not obey their Bible even though they claim it is the literal word of God so CHRISTIANITY IS GOOD.

That is insanity my friend.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Wow... you've just chock full of denial this week! Not only did I find evidence to the contrary, I found legion of evidence to the contrary... not surprising that you'd be denying it... For example, if you consult Islamic Banking regulations, you'd see that Sharia, Fatwas, and Islamic belief are linked... they even set up a Control Board to regulate it!!!

Fatwa and Sharia’a Control Boardhttp://www.sib.ae/en/shariaa/fatwa-a...rol-board.htmlThe Fatwa and Sharia’a Control Board is an independent body of scholars specialised in the Islamic jurisprudence as well as fatwa experts in accordance with the Sharia’a principles. It directs, monitors and supervises the bank’s activities to ensure that the bank’s management follows the provisions and principles of the Islamic Sharia’a in the bank’s operation and transactions.

This not only proves you wrong, it does so categorically!

Quote:

Originally Posted by segovius

Btw, Wilders is a right-wing Nazi....not surprising you would support him but it is a bit disconcerting to see fascism openly espoused.

Geert Wilders a Dutch politician and leader of the Party for Freedom - not at all surprising you'd object to such men and such a concept as freedom! btw... Wilder's educational film," Islam Rising: Geert Wilders’ Warning to the West, is a great learning resource that you should watch. Trailer here.This documentary builts upon his earlier film, FITNA, which is also educational.

Quote:

Originally Posted by segovius

I will say I am opposed to punishments such as stoning and amputation. They are barbaric

Good... do you also condemn those in Islam that practice such punishments?

Quote:

Originally Posted by segovius

Please comment on these passages from your Bible (remember these are IN the Bible - there is stoning mentioned in the Qur'an):

Are Christians practicing any of those outdated passages? No. But the radical punishments as espoused in the Koran are being practiced; a woman was stoned just this week in Pakistan by Taliban following Sharia Law=>

Wow... you've just chock full of denial this week! Not only did I find evidence to the contrary, I found legion of evidence to the contrary... not surprising that you'd be denying it... For example, if you consult Islamic Banking regulations, you'd see that Sharia, Fatwas, and Islamic belief are linked... they even set up a Control Board to regulate it!!!

]

A Fatwa is a ruling. I could put one on you - not a bad idea hahah - does not mean it is Sharia law.

Quote:

Fatwa and Sharia’a Control Boardhttp://www.sib.ae/en/shariaa/fatwa-a...rol-board.htmlThe Fatwa and Sharia’a Control Board is an independent body of scholars specialised in the Islamic jurisprudence as well as fatwa experts in accordance with the Sharia’a principles. It directs, monitors and supervises the bank’s activities to ensure that the bank’s management follows the provisions and principles of the Islamic Sharia’a in the bank’s operation and transactions.

This not only proves you wrong, it does so categorically!

I think not. Perhaps you should study what you read?

Quote:

Geert Wilders a Dutch politician and leader of the Party for Freedom - not at all surprising you'd object to such men and such a concept as freedom!

There is freedom. I support it. I support the right to support fascist racist political parties - as you clearly do.

But I despise racists and fascists. Though I think you are perfectly entitled to be one. As you clearly are.

Quote:

btw... Wilder's educational film," Islam Rising: Geert Wilders’ Warning to the West, is a great learning resource that you should watch. Trailer here.This documentary builts upon his earlier film, FITNA, which is also educational.

Have seen it.

Hundreds of elementary errors about Islam and the Qur'an - some as much howlers as you're own 'no churches or synagogues, not surprising you'd love it, same disregard for facts - and could well be hate-speech.I believe there are several cases open in the Netherlands to this effect.

Quote:

Good... do you also condemn those in Islam that practice such punishments?

Of course.

My argument with you has never been that - my argument is about your stupidity - or agenda shall we say - in claiming this is what ISLAM IS rather than what some MUSLIMS DO.

Bit like if I was stupid enough to claim Christianity promotes paedophilia. Luckily I'm not.

Quote:

Are Christians practicing any of those outdated passages? No. But the radical punishments as espoused in the Koran are being practiced; a woman was stoned just this week in Pakistan by Taliban following Sharia Law=>

Yet again:

THERE IS NO INJUNCTION FOR STONING IN THE QUR'AN.

So we have a situation here - either you are deliberately ignoring that fact and continuing to claim it - lying in effect. or you have some agenda. Or you cannot comprehend.

Which is it?

The Qur'an does not say it - the Bible does. It's that simple. And you believe the Bible is the Word of God literally.

So therefore YOU SHOULD BE FOLLOWING IT ACCORDING TO YOUR BELIEF.

Muslims SHOULD NOT because it is:

NOT IN THE QU'RAN.

Have you grasped that now?

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad